Imaginary-Voice1902

Imaginary-Voice1902 t1_j7xwsth wrote

I think that is a really good point too. These laws often don’t come with a right to legal council because they occur in civil courts. Who exactly do people think will be harmed as a result of depriving someone of an appointed attorney? People of low socioeconomic status of course. Ultimately we had ways to deprive truly dangerous people of their lawful ability to purchase firearms through a court with real due process standards but some people decided they needed an express lane with no real due process. Red flag laws are just not a good solution unless the goal is to just enable swatting.

2

Imaginary-Voice1902 t1_j7nf930 wrote

If someone states that they are going to kill people they are committing a crime. They don’t need a red flag law to address the situation and they keep people from buying guns in the sense that drug laws keep people from buying drugs. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. If red flag laws could keep prohibited people from obtaining firearms then we wouldn’t constantly see people arrested for having them illegally.

Red flag laws are easily circumvented by determined people and mass shooters are among the most determined.

Red flag laws deny due process standards. People are being deprived of rights simply on the basis that someone claims that someone else might misuse their rights. Can you imagine if the government simply determined that certain people couldn’t organize protests on the basis that they claim they might turn violent? Sorry people that want to hold police accountable. You are committing a felony if you organize a protest because the state decided your right to protest might be dangerous.

2